Adjuster ends up caught by investigation by FBI, USPS, local police and others.

The Illinois Supreme Court has once again corrected an error of insurance policy interpretation by the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District and held that the mechanical device exclusion in the policy in question was not ambiguous.

This discussion focuses on the formation of captive insurance companies, the types of captives and general information pertaining to captives.

Minor league teams began filing their own suits earlier this year and also seem to be proceeding with similar types of lawsuits.

A state-by-state analysis of matching statutes.

Discusses a question of material misrepresentation on an application.

CP 04 05 09 17 Ordinance or Law Coverage

Endorsement is identical to CG 21 50, but this endorsement provides an exception. Specific activities must be listed in the endorsement or the policy declarations as exempt from the liquor exclusion.

Deletes the liquor liability exclusion in the CGL form and replaces it. The term"in the business of" is eliminated. Instead, the exclusion applies only if the insured (1) manufactures, sells, or distributes alcoholic beverages, (2) serves liquor for a charge, regardless of whether or not the activity requires a license or is for the purpose of financial gain, (3) serves liquor without charge if a license is required for such an activity; or (4) permits any person to bring alcoholic beverages onto the insured's premises for consumption on the premises.

Provides liquor liability coverage as a stand-alone coverage.